Locke's Second Treatise Of Government And Thomas Hobbes Leviathan

In John Locke’s Second Treatise of Government and Thomas Hobbes’ Leviathan, a large topic of discussion is the state of nature. In Leviathan Hobbes has a more negative, but realistic perspective of the state of nature than Locke does in the Second Treatise. Hobbes believes that the state of nature is a “war of every man against every man.”(34) Locke, however, believes that the state of nature is a “state all men are naturally in, and that is, a state of perfect freedom.”(2) Although both provide really good arguments for their beliefs, I think Hobbes’ has a more realistic idea of the state of nature. Hobbes believes that a state of nature cannot possibly be successful. One way he reasons this is by talking about how when someone is “going

In section 6 he says that “the state of nature has a law of nature to govern it, which obliges every one: and reason, which is that law, teaches all mankind, who will but consult it, that being all equal and independent, no one ought to harm another in his life, health, liberty, or possessions: for men being all the workmanship of one omnipotent and infinitely wise maker….”(2) I think that Locke’s idea is flawed because he thinks that if everyone is equal and independent then they won’t harm each other. I don’t think this is the case because it’s in our human nature to strive to be the best that we can be even if it’s at the expense of others. Even at Stuy, people do try to manipulate others so that they can succeed. As we’ve said in previous class discussions, humans are inherently selfish. However, Locke does make a good point when he says that “ every man in the state of Nature has a power to kill a murderer, both to deter others from doing the like injury (which no reparation can compensate) by the example of the punishment that attends it…” (7) Since everyone in a hypothetical state of nature is equal, everyone would have the same abilities— even if that means the power to kill a murderer. He believes that in a state of nature people would be unlikely to do things like this because they know someone can do the same to them. While it’s a good argument, I think that people are all made differently and

In chapter 11, Locke says “For the law of Nature being unwritten, and so nowhere to be found but in the minds of men, they who through passion or interest, shall miscite or misapply it…” (74) Locke makes a good point that since the state of nature is governed by the law of nature, we can’t really guarantee anything regarding it. Since the law of nature has never been written down, no one can be sure what falls under natural laws. Locke also goes on to explain what three things the state of Nature needs: “an established, settled, known law,” “a known and indifferent judge,” and “power to back and support a sentence.” This sounds very similar to the three branch system we have in our government. If these three branches are necessary for the state of nature to be a success, it doesn’t seem too